After reading Discourses 4.1 I would like to summarize it as a defense of the institution of slavery that goes something like “Slavery is good because slaves themselves don’t know what it means to be free and freedom is actually a burden in the wrong mindset so it shouldn’t be for everyone.” (Ignoring that slavery, the deprivation of personhood, is an inhumane burden somehow comparable to “oh no I’m free and now I have to answer to Caesar”) Yes, it’s an odd opinion from a former slave who was maimed by a former master.

Unfortunately this argument is sustained all through history and today we have people going something like “actually, working multiple minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay rent is good”.

I'm not really passing judgement on Epictetus, merely relaying his position, as someone with a far more personal understanding of roman slavery than anyone discussing it 2000 post fact. Difficult to explain to the man how he ought to feel about events in his life we have only a sketch of an idea about.

Within the framework of Stoicism, where worrying is one of the greatest evils, his argument makes every sense.

I don't think Epictetus was actually defending the institution of slavery. Rather, stoic philosophy is full of these "hacks" for handling unpleasant things in your life. Many of them seem quite morbid and bizarre to the untrained mind (such as actively thinking about the death and absence of a loved one).

I don't know about "hacks", rather observations.

If most people didn't have to work to survive, they wouldn't know what to do with the time. An observation about slavery is that you've traded in the burden of responsibility that liberty introduces for the comfort of not having to worry about what to do with yourself

It's easier to just go do what you're told than it is to determine what must be done. Most people actually prefer that way of living. Left to themselves, they'd either become paralyzed with indecision, or they'd piss their lives away indulging their appetites and possibly commit suicide.

> I don't know about "hacks", rather observations.

They are definitely hacks: the Enchiridion lists a few of them. Stoicism is anything if not a practical philosophy.

> An observation about slavery is that you've traded in the burden of responsibility that liberty introduces for the comfort of not having to worry about what to do with yourself

I interpreted it as a hedonic treadmill of responsibility; okay, you're not a slave anymore but a citizen so now you have the responsibilities of a citizen to worry about. You're no longer a citizen but a senator, so now you have senatorial responsibilities. You're no longer a senator but the emperor, so now you have to deal with all the problems an emperor needs to deal with it (as Marcus Aurelius can attest to).

Moving up in the world just means that you replace one set of problems with another set of problems. Slave or emperor, it makes no difference if the problems are beyond your control.

I prefer to start having the emperor's problems. You can keep the slave's problems if you want.

> ”Unfortunately this argument is sustained all through history and today we have people going something like “actually, working multiple minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay rent is good”.”

It’s much worse than that — today we have people justifying why they work for others as opposed to being entrepreneurs. “It’s not for everyone. It’s too much work. It’s all about luck. You have to be rich already. etc…”

It’s all about luck and needing to be already wealthy is true in America at least. Healthcare costs will annihilate you otherwise…

"It’s all about luck. You have to be rich already. etc…”

Yep, it is true. It is not for everyone, but not for a lack of want.

If thats all a person can do would you rather them sit on a couch and live off of/depend on the state? No it's not a super fun existence and that's what my life was like right after high school in the early college years.

The real problem comes in when someone in that situation gives up and does nothing.

Ah Stoics, they’re the best at turning being a resigned quitter into dignified philosophy.

I think that's a mis-characterization of stoicism. That sounds more like Epicureanism (quit stressful things and live a simple life) or cynicism (quit everything and live like a stray dog so that you don't have to worry about losing anything).

Stoicism because popular with Roman elites specifically because it didn't ask the adherents to quit anything, but simply to adapt themselves to whatever adversity they might face[1].

[1] https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powe...

I think there are different flavors of Stoicism chiefly differentiated by the social status of the person practicing it. The wealthy and the powerful don’t have to deal with systemic oppression, only their own emotions and consequences of playing the game of realpolitik. In that context Stoicism has a lot to offer. For everyone else though - well sometimes raw, “unmanaged” anger for example is a useful emotion. A “stoic revolutionary” is an oxymoron.

Rage unfailingly makes you a pawn in someone else's game. You should always be wary of anyone telling you that you need to be angry.

The Stoics inherited the Cynics attitude that death isn't an evil. If worse comes to worst, you can always just fall on your sword. They used to say that the door is always open. Marcus Cato weaponized this fact to rob Julius Caesar of complete victory: Caesar couldn't demand his submission if he fell on his sword first. They found him and patched him up. But he ripped out the stitches and disemboweled himself with his bare hands.

I wouldn't be so harsh; it's better to have some way of handling things life throws at you, especially things you have little to no control over, than none at all.

I would rather say an ability to be "well-adjusted".